WI The 1697 Polish election turned out differently?

In the 1697 Polish election, the Russian and Austrian backed candidate, Augustus the Strong of Saxony, defeated Prince Conti, the French backed candidate. What if Conti had won? My thoughts are twofold. First, Poland may have taken part in the Great Northern War on the side of the Swedes. Second, I could see them opening an eastern front against the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession. In the long term, Prince Conti and his successors, with French help, may have been able to resist the partitions.
 
In the 1697 Polish election, the Russian and Austrian backed candidate, Augustus the Strong of Saxony, defeated Prince Conti, the French backed candidate. What if Conti had won? My thoughts are twofold. First, Poland may have taken part in the Great Northern War on the side of the Swedes. Second, I could see them opening an eastern front against the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession. In the long term, Prince Conti and his successors, with French help, may have been able to resist the partitions.
Without Augustus as King of Poland you might butterfly away Great Norther War, let alone partitions of Poland.
 
Conti already won election, he just had no determination and military strenght to prevail over Augustus.
There is other option for 1697 election-Jakub Sobieski does not behave like utter idiot and succeedes his dad on the throne. IOTL he did everything to be not elected, even his own mother turned against him. If he is more intelligent he should win, he would not lost Habsburg's support (which he initially had) and thus OTL precedent (son of previous king refused the throne) would be avoided.
 
In the 1697 Polish election, the Russian and Austrian backed candidate, Augustus the Strong of Saxony, defeated Prince Conti, the French backed candidate. What if Conti had won?

Acrtually, he did. He got more votes than August and was proclaimed as a king by the Primate Michaŀ Radziejowski. However, while Conti still remained in France August rushed to Commonwealth with a Saxon army. So the early bird got a worm. ;)


My thoughts are twofold. First, Poland may have taken part in the Great Northern War on the side of the Swedes.

Highly unlikely even if because there would be the GNW. In OTL it was initiated by August while Peter joined the alliance as a "remote second": the greatest prize, Riga, was going to August while Peter was expecting only to get back Ingria with Narva. Without August (there was an illusion about the quality of the Saxon troops) Peter simply would not risk a war even with Denmark as an ally.


Second, I could see them opening an eastern front against the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession.

You are seemingly ignoring the fact that in the PLC the royal power was quite limited, to put it mildly. The chances that Conti would be able to convince the Sejm to start a war against the traditional ally (the Hapsburgs) just to benefit the King of France would be extremely slim. IIRC, Sejm even financing of the Great Ottoman War was problematic, especially on the late stage.

At best, Conti could try to pull the PLC out of the Great Ottoman War by making a separate peace. Not that at this stage it would matter much for anybody besides the Poles. Then, of course, goes a sad fact that by the time in question the PLC almost ceased to exist as a noticeable military power: during the GNW the Russians, Saxons and Swedes had been fighting on it territory even when the PLC was neutral and on the rare occasions when the the PLC troops did participate in the battles their performance was quite unimpressive. As Swedish general Mardefelt pointed out before the Battle of Kalisz, the Poles had not been keen on fighting Russians or anyone at all during the war (and he proved to be correct: as soon as the Russian troops advanced, the crown army led by Józef Potocki fled from the field).



In the long term, Prince Conti and his successors, with French help, may have been able to resist the partitions.

This assumes 2 things: (a) that Conti manages to establish a dynasty and (b) that France could provide any realistic help to the PLC by the late XVIII. None of them (IMO) has too much traction with a reality. Russia and Hapsburgs had much more weight in the region (and much better communications) and, as was demonstrated by the War of the Polish Succession, France could do close to nothing in the PLC to help its candidate. The same goes for the Partitions: what France could do in the practical terms against the combination of Russia, Prussia and Hapsburgs?
 
Conti already won election, he just had no determination and military strenght to prevail over Augustus.
There is other option for 1697 election-Jakub Sobieski does not behave like utter idiot and succeedes his dad on the throne. IOTL he did everything to be not elected, even his own mother turned against him. If he is more intelligent he should win, he would not lost Habsburg's support (which he initially had) and thus OTL precedent (son of previous king refused the throne) would be avoided.

But if he had brains (which is a cornerstone of your scenario), he would hardly start war against Sweden which means no GNW at least in OTL time frame. Neither would he join France in the War of the Spanish Succession.
 
But if he had brains (which is a cornerstone of your scenario), he would hardly start war against Sweden which means no GNW at least in OTL time frame. Neither would he join France in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Surely, he wouldn't be even able to start war with Sweden, unlike Augustus, had no Saxon troops. He could instead use opportunity of Lithuanian Civil War-Sapieha family, Sobieski's enemies, who de facto controlled Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were crushed by rebellion of lesser nobles. Weakening of Lithuanian magnates would be more important gain.
 
Top